A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | March 11, 2015 | Committee Room | Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House

Members of the House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations will
come to order. The Chair would like to begin by thanking the members for
their attendance this morning. I would also like to recognize the House
Sergeant at Arms, Carlton Adams, Joe Austin, and Martha Gas, and for
their kind assistance this morning. Members, as was noticed last night,
this committee will be considering a proposed committee substitute for
House Bill 157. There's a motion from Representative Torbett that
the proposed committee substitute for House Bill 157 be before the
committee, without objection that is so ordered. Members, in the
interest of time, the Chair will take a moment to explain why we are
here this morning. The substantive parts of this bill were vetted
yesterday in the House Committee on Environment. While the vote to give
those provisions a favorable report was not unanimous, it was very
strong. It was discovered last, well yesterday afternoon, that there was
a largely unrelated finance provision in the bill. Those of you that
have the original bill before you, I believe it would be section two.
You will find that section two has been removed from this proposed
committee substitute. Therefore, all the provisions of this bill, again,
were vetted by the House Committee on Environment. The provision that
was requiring a vetting by the House Committee on Finance has been
removed from the proposed committee substitute that is before the
committee at this time. It's the Chair's intent to allow the
committee to have as much or as little discussion on the actual content
of the bill as you would like to have. However, I would reiterate that
this bill was vetted by the House Committee on Environment yesterday.
The only reason that it is before the Rules Committee is that it was
necessary to adopt a proposed committee substitute to remove the finance
provisions of the bill which would have possibly made the bill a
five-day bill in both chambers. The bill does contain some
time-sensitive material. With that, are there any inquiries from the
members? Representative Torbett.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a motion at the appropriate time. I would
also like to add a reminder to those members of the committee, to speak
or to address you need to push the red buttons in front of them so that
they will be heard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
The Chair will first reiterate what Representative Torbett said. If you
wish to speak, if you'll please push the little microphone buttons
in front of you there, but the Chair did recognize that Representative
Torbett rose to move to give the proposed committee substitute for House
Bill 157 a favorable report, unfavorable to the original bill. Is there
further discussion or debate on the proposed committee substitute?
Representative Carney.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Thank you, it's my first, I'm pushing the button. The bill was
amended. I'm sorry, I came in late, did you say that it was amended
with the, to now move for the NC, they are not mandated any further and
to adopt new rules? Was that discussed? We amended in Environment
yesterday.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Representative Carney notes that the bill was amended and then given a
favorable report and rolled into a new PCS. If the Chair could ask
briefly for staff, which section is the lady from Mecklenburg referring.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Mr. Chairman, it is section six of the PCS.
[SPEAKER CHANGES]
Members, the Chair would direct you, the crux of Representative
Carney's inquiry begins on the bottom of page 15 and continues on to
the bottom

on the page 16, and the Chair believes that the purpose of this
amendment was to say that the EMC, well if Representative Carney, may we
ask staff to speak to that?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely, yeah.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Ms. Cameron.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Chairman. Under existing law, the sections
require the EMC to adopt a rule concerning air toxics with respect to
drilling operation. The amendment that is now section 6 of the PCS would
provide that the EMC could adopt such a rule if it determines that the
state's current regulatory scheme for air toxics and the federal
regulatory schemes are insufficient.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. May I just make a comment?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] You may. The lady's recognized.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] And thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted the members to
be aware that there was that change made in committee. And this was
also, it's a matter of whether you want us in North Carolina. We
already have the current law is that they are mandated to adopt these
air quality rules, and we haven't done it yet. And we're now
saying that they may. And I know that the language says they still can
do it. Of course they still can, but there are a lot of questions about
whether North Carolina should adopt its own state rules. Other states
have done that. They now can, what the amendment did, and staff you can
correct me if I'm wrong, the amendment says that we may, the EMC
may, based on what the federal standards are, if we think we are not
stronger than they are, then we can change them. But the concern is,
when we go back to the original bill, we were promised, we were promised
in this state, the citizens were, that we would have the strongest state
air pollution, or air control laws. And so we had that in the current
laws, that they were mandated, the EMC was mandated. I just want to
repeat that. And now we're saying they aren't mandated, but they
can if they deem so. Well, they haven't done that so far, and in
July we're set to move from our purview over these rules going
forward to the new commission, the mining commission. It's got a
different name. I'm drawing a blank. What is the new name, staff?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually, it's Oil and Gas ??
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Oil and Gas. And when that happens in July and we do
not have our mandated rules in North Carolina, then we do not have the
say over that going forward. Just wanted everybody to know, if
that's how you want.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair's going to recognize the sponsor of the
bill, Representative McElraft, to speak to that point, and then the
Chair will take members in the order. Representative Davis was the next
hand, and then Representative Torbett.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
Thank you so much for being here early. I just wanted to respond to
that. The state of North Carolina already has some of the most strict
air toxic rules, and it has gone through rule making, the process. The
air toxic rules that we have right now abide that ?? is already
administering those rules. Our air quality deputy, he actually has
contacted other states that have gone through this. It was mentioned
yesterday that Ohio was doing a good job, by Representative Harrison in
our environment committee. Well, Ohio was contacted. Our air quality
rules, they are saying right now, are sufficient. They may have to be
tweaked. They have gone through rule making. The public has been
involved in them over the years. All this does is just say they can use
those rules, and not have to go out and make more rules if they feel
those are sufficient. If they feel they're not sufficient, they can
go and add to those rules or modify those rules. So it's not that
we're not going to have any air toxic rules. We do. Very strict
rules in the state of North Carolina.
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, for what purpose?
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we're arguing is, is
that if the committee determines that those rules are not adequate

There are implemented, a little work share owner of men and women , to
one decision of the city's general Aidid nothing but still in its
current form about more
than ample room to address the matter to the instance of north Carolina
with my kids, comments, is to remain away a lot to eighth grade oh,
here's where the
boom of department (SPEAKER CHANGES) Mr. Racial issues have a
representative of foreigners are correct and of which you would you
please rise to your nature and, you
know, of
Manhattan the concerns workers with this for the committee of stuff to
throw that the city's to let a letter to the city to let it seems
that the date of Saturday's
to the signatures to get the ball to the sun is that a heightened the
letter was a letter to the legend that the conditions of the citizens of
the battle and the
to the local news agencies estimate of letting the city that it is the
letters to let a tough decision, the cinder at a Tustin is to support of
the date that a
city which the the the cities of the letters that a letter that others
that the middle of the titles to the team to the the the IQ, using a
number of committees
are further discussion for the digital edition correction (SPEAKER
CHANGES) if the commissioners to oust the one written approval for using
down the question before
the committee
is production from versions of the House Committee touched and the the
one that each of you that it will work. Watching a little below the idea
that abortion Wilson
of watching, and instead of offering medal in the citizen of the above
the city that is to the the the the citizen as if the citizens of the
best stuff that has
seized as choosing the test as if it has a must-have sit-in- based
systems, the city has the highest common as if the half day, when was
that the city......